Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
TBH, The fridge tropes have been confusing for a while since it's not ever been clear exactly how subjective it is. I'd remove it since it comes off as someone's own opinion of what Fridge Brilliance is for, when there's not actually a lot of understanding about the limits or lackthereof right now. (relevant discussion is relevant
)
I do think there's a problem with people using Fridge Brilliance defensively. I've seen plenty of entries that go:
- Problem with the work or show.
- Fridge Brilliance: Actually it was intentional.
That's natter though, and doesn't seem to be the same as normal fridge entries (do people even add these things anymore?)
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall^^ That reads as far more of a general Justifying Edit problem rather than something specific with Fridge tropes.
Thanks for playing Kings Quest V!I'll likely get rid of the Fridge entry since from what I'm hearing there are multiple problems with the scope of it in general. (Which makes tons of sense now that I think about it; I was always kind of weary about the apparent lack of a need for other Fridge reactions like Hypocrisy or Sorrow).
What about the "trope" entry though? That entry sticks out more to me because maybe it could be re-written, but right now it just reads like irrational annoyance at the usage of a term that was going to evolve over time anyway.
Edited by Coachpill Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱I think they meant in terms of page type, as they no longer use "trope". As for the casual use of "trope" for non-trope items, that doesn't seem to be as serious as the entry makes it out to be. It's a lack of a better term, people rarely seem to believe that these concepts are genuine tropes.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall^^ Yeah, I think they were echoing my first complaint (how the entry is written in the context of Trivia and AD's not being tropes, even though they used to be classified as such). The bigger gripe I have though is similar to what ^ mentioned (the word "trope" isn't always going to have the exact same definition as time goes on regardless of how people use it, so it comes off as whiny). Speaking of ^, the "lack of a better term" thing is another good point. I think based on the responses here to both of these I'll be comfortable with removing them.
One more question I have is whether I getting the gist of what Subjective Tropes now says? I assumed "YMMV tropes" is still unofficially-correct terminology so to speak, since the page implies all tropes are "categorized" based on objective with subjective examples or just purely objective, and that they're not immediately separate concepts.
Edited by Coachpill Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱

I was unsure where exactly to ask this since a) it's something I'm unsure of but isn't exactly a trope example, and b) isn't something I want to do immediately regardless, so I'm taking it here.
I came across a couple SPRT entries about a month ago that I've been ruminating on, one that was added in 2011
and the other in 2019
, which respectively (in their current forms) are:
The FB entry was originally natter according to the archive, but I don't necessarily think the phrasing/restructuring of the phrasing is related to the actual problem I'm personally seeing — that being that this sounds like its discussing another Audience Reaction entirely. Sacred Cow was the first thing that came to my mind, but that's not really speculation-related; the only thing I can gauge from the entry is that it's common for tropers to ask a question in the context of FB (like "X, perhaps?"), but I can't say that I've ever seen people use FB to justify plot holes. Mainly this entry is just really unclear.
The Trope entry...is a bit more complicated. I'm too lazy to fetch the exact archive dates now, but Subjective Tropes and (I think) Trivia Tropes used to be a thing for quite a while, before it was decided that neither were actually tropes. That aside, the page for the former says, and I quote, "this used to be the name for YMMV, tropes that objectively exist, but whose examples are subjective", something that the entry either ignores entirely, is simply written without the knowledge of, or is misinterpreted. The part about the sidebar was added a bit earlier this year, which I don't think is necessarily a bad addition—especially since the rest of the entry (particularly the last couple of sentences) are pretty complainy—but it makes the entry sound contradictory, even if it doesn't really "prove" anything one way or the other. "Inherently misuse" also sounds like Word Cruft.
So what should we do with these? Should they stay on the page or nah? Curious about what others think. Edited by Coachpill